MovieChat Forums > Scent of a Woman (1993) Discussion > what really annoys me about the movie

what really annoys me about the movie


Those who claim it is a classic or a masterpiece, I just don't get it.

Granted, it is entertaining, but there are so many things that for me disqualifies the movie as a great movie:

1) the scenario is unrealistic. First of all, no way that any school would have made such a public hearing for such an affair, and no way that the students would have been interested in the matter (but the film makes it look like all the students are so passionate about that affair, and when charlie wins, you can even see the students jumping for joy at the exit). Then, the blind man was way out of line and wouldn't have been granted as much speech time as he was, especially considering that he was threatening the school. In real life, it isn't about how loud you speak or how many "f.ck" you can place in a sentence that gives you credibility. Finally, no way the disciplinary comity would have taken a decision on the spot based on how enthusiastic students were towards the colonel's speech. Are we forgetting that there was damage of property and that it is absolutely normal to expect and demand compliance from material witnesses? So what are the principles the school should be built on? that student camaraderie is more important than compliance with the school rules or the law? Whether you agree or not, the discipline comity bears its name well: it is there to apply DISCIPLINE, and that is exactly what it would have done in real life.

2) the characters are stereotyped. Too much emphasis on the fact that the colonel is blind. The scene that made me cringe is when he crossed the street without waiting, and he ends up tripping and falling in a garbage can or something (rolling my eyes). So if he is blind he can't be anything else? I found there was such little finesse in the creation of the characters. So he is blind and he is loud, and rude and annoying (in real life no one could have stood 5 minutes around a man like this). I felt it was acting withing acting. The character itself was playing a role. Didn't feel right to me.

3) the ending is so cliché.

- the man ends up with the woman in the end. They just HAD to give it a complete happy ending. Like 90% of all american movie, the hero DESERVES a woman, so the colonel right after his victorious speech, has to come back home with a woman, or at least with the promise of a woman.

- happy colonel becomes happy grandaddy. So you've been neglecting your grandson and granddaughter all this time, and now you talk about hot chocolate with marshmallows, while your new pal Charlie tenderly watches from afar (yawn).

4) what is the morale, the values of the movie? Be true to yourself (don't you be a snitch against a bunch of ungrateful criminal spoiled brats even if you lose your chance of Harvard!)? life is worth living even if you're a handicap person (Charlie opens up the eyes of the colonel to the beautiful flowers of life, like a blind person can't be happy or find happiness on its own??)?


Im a queen b!tch!

reply

Forgive me, but I'm going to dismiss the #1 reason, because "lack of realism" is a trait that can be used to describe MANY great films. The climactic "courtroom" scene is a great scene and really enhances the film. It's probably the go-to scene for many people who enjoy the movie. I'd bet many people watch the movie just for that one scene, or stop what they're doing to watch it.

reply

[deleted]

i agree with your basic judgment but your reasoning is nonsense. the movie is based on italian novel and movie, i'm sure you know nothing about every school in italy and i don't buy that you even know the system of every american one, any way movies are art not documentaries, let us say it's in a parallel universe! and we don't know for sure that he end up with a woman, but that he end up with hope which is what matter.

reply

So the outcome of our wishes don't matter, just the wondering if wishes will come true? Hope matters, but not its reality? What a sad life this is.

reply

that is the point, this is not life, it's a movie, for life you need to get out of your house

reply

Those who claim it is a classic or a masterpiece, watch the movie this is inspired to, the italian "Profumo di donna" (Scent of woman), and you'll see what's the meaning of "good acting". I completely agree with all your four points, the clichè, the odd moral etc. This is still a nice movie but once you see the elegance of Vittorio Gassman in Profumo di donna you can't give more than 7/10 to this.

reply

1. Some people think Vertigo is the best movie of all time, and it's 10x as unrealistic. It's a bit hard to allege this wouldn't happen at Baird school, since there is no such school. The character wasn't "granted" time, the school master was like a dear in the headlights with this speech. The f.ck was in character for a grumpy ex military man. Perhaps the disciplinary committee "should" have applied discipline, BUT they were won over by an incredible speech and an alternative view point, and THAT is the genius of the scene, which you apparently missed.

2. The scene when he tripped over the garbage can was incredible because it really makes you feel the pathetic state that he has reached. They could have gone way further on this, I thought it was quite subtle. Too much emphasis that he is blind? But that is the entire plot! There is no plot if he isn't blind.

3. What, you would have preferred he's blown his brains out? Come on.

4. The movie is meant to make you think. If the moral of the story was too cut and dried, you'd be whinging about that too as being a cliche.

This movie is genius.

reply

This is a remake... usually the original movie is far better, 9 on 10 times. I didn't see this one, so can't tell much. I enjoyed the original, witch can't be done better.

reply

I agree completely.

The movie was one of the most overrated films of the year, topped only by Pacino's hammy, mannered acting (Whoo-aaah).
He didn't deserve an Oscar. Chris O'Donnell was by far the better actor, so much more natural...

reply

His acting isn't more natural, his character is just more mild-mannered.


I found Frank Slade entertaining, but also realistic. There are people like that, with a silly catchphrase to fill in the silences. He overcompensated for his depressive tendencies.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]